THIRD SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 50165/99 
by Ali Rıza DOĞAN 
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26 October 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr G. Ress, President
 Mr I. Cabral Barreto
 Mr L. Caflisch
 Mr R. Türmen
 Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska
 Mrs H.S. Greve, 
 Mr K. Traja, judges
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 March 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ali Rıza Doğan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul. He is represented before the Court by Mr Sedat Çınar, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1.      Arrest, detention in police custody and the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant

On 3 May 1992 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.

On 10 May 1992 he was brought before Diyarbakır State Security Court. The latter ordered his detention on remand.

On 15 May 1992 the public prosecutor attached to the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter, accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation. He requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 125 of the Criminal Code.

On 8 December 1994 the applicant was released pending trial.

On 30 March 1995 the Diyarbakır State Security Court acquitted the applicant of the charges brought against him.

On 29 February 1996 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The applicant learned of this decision on 31 July 1996.

2. Civil proceedings brought by the applicant

On 25 October 1996 the applicant filed an action for compensation with the Kartal Assize Court under Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained. The applicant requested that an amount of 2,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) be awarded to him in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage he had sustained due to his detention.

On 2 December 1996 the Kartal Assize Court requested the Diyarbakır State Security Court to send certain documents showing the dates on which the applicant was arrested and detained on remand. In particular, it requested that the documents proving the date when the judgment became final in respect of the applicant be sent quickly in order to determine whether the applicant had filed his compensation claim within the statutory time-limit.

Between 2 December 1996 and 30 November 1999 the Kartal Assize Court consistently requested the Diyarbakır State Security Court to send certain documents pertaining to the above-mentioned issues.

On 10 November 1999 the Kartal Assize Court appointed an expert to calculate the pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant due to his deprivation of liberty.

On 24 November 1999 the expert submitted his report concerning the amount of pecuniary damage the applicant sustained as a result of his deprivation of liberty.

On 30 November 1999 the Kartal Assize Court awarded the applicant a certain amount of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to compensate the periods the applicant had spent in police custody and in detention on remand.

The applicant and the Ministry of Treasury appealed to the judgment of the Kartal Assize Court.

On 5 October 2000 the Court of Cassation held that the amount awarded to the applicant was too low and quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.

On 9 November 2000 the expert appointed by the first-instance court submitted his report concerning the amount of pecuniary damage the applicant sustained as a result of his deprivation of liberty.

On 10 November 2000 the Kartal Assize Court awarded the applicant TRL 1,538,492,740 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to compensate the periods the applicant had spent in police custody and in detention on remand.

The Ministry of Treasury appealed to the Court of Cassation against the judgment of the Kartal Assize Court.

On 5 April 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court due to a procedural error.

On 28 June 2001 the Kartal Assize Court awarded the applicant TRL 1,538,492,740 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to compensate the periods the applicant had spent in police custody and in detention on remand.

The Ministry of Treasury appealed to the Court of Cassation against the judgment of the Kartal Assize Court.

On 8 November 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Kartal Assize Court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant contends under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention in police custody and his detention on remand were excessive.

The applicant submits under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him as well as the compensation proceedings he had brought pursuant to Law no. 466 was excessive.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention in police custody and his detention on remand were excessive.

The Court reiterates that according to the established case-law of the Convention organs, where no domestic remedy is available the six-month period runs from the date of the act alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention; however, where it concerns a continuing situation, the period of six-month runs from the end of the situation concerned. In this connection, the Court points out that Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained is not an effective domestic remedy for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention but concerns the right to receive compensation for detention covered under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Yağcı and Sargın v. Turkey judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 17, § 44, and Demir and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, pp. 2652-53, § 37).

The Court notes that the applicant was detained on remand on 10 May 1992 and released pending trial on 8 December 1994. The first date constitutes the beginning of the running of six-months for the applicant's complaint pertaining to the length of his detention in police custody and the second date the beginning of the running of six-months for the applicant's complaint concerning his detention on remand. The Court observes that the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 3 March 1999.

It follows that this part of the application is introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

2. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him as well as the compensation proceedings he had brought pursuant to Law no. 466 was excessive.

As to the first limb of complaints raised under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant, the Court observes that the judgment of 29 February 1996 of the Court of Cassation is the final decision within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant claims to have learned of this decision on 31 July 1996, whereas the application was submitted to the Court on 3 March 1999, which is more than six months after the final domestic decision.

This part of the application must be considered time-barred and therefore inadmissible in application of Article 35 § 1 and 4 of the Convention.

As regards the second limb of complaints raised under Article 6 § 1 pertaining to the length of the compensation proceedings brought by the applicant, the Court considers that it cannot on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of it to the respondent Government.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaint pertaining to the length of the compensation proceedings;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Vincent Berger Georg Ress 
 Registrar President

DOGAN v. TURKEY DECISION


DOGAN v. TURKEY DECISION